Christianity and Gay Marriage

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=Adahn]

[size=2]The Christian ideology, in vehemently denying homosexuals the rights associated with a civil union, keeps those homosexuals from accepting God, damning them to death, when otherwise it could relent, [i]allowing[/i] those homosexuals to come to God and making available to them the path to salvation.[/size][/QUOTE]It is not. Part of actually coming to God is recognising you have sinned, and turning from that sin, to follow God and his plan for you. It must also be stated that, he made you, he knows whats best for you, and that's why there are restrictions on what you can and cannot do.

It's like a child who wants to eat sweets all the time. The kids parents know that giving the child sweets all the time will be a precursor to diabetes and/or obesity. The child knows nothing of that and thinks of the parent as being mean for not allowing he/she to take the sweets. Same with God. God knows that homosexuality is bad for us, so he does not allow us to engage in such. We think God is being unreasonable but in the end, he knows what is best for us.
In the end, when the child grows up, she will thank the parents for placing restrictions on the sweets and looking out for his/her health.

This is not a comment on the world and gay marriage, but why I see it as having no place in the Church. I feel that those who want to come in and change everything should found their own church based on what they beleive rather than try and change the foundations of the institution to fit themselves.
Forcing change on the church is another form of intolerance in itself.

[Retribution]

[size=1]The debate at hand is not on whether or not the Christian Church should allow gays to get a religious union, but rather a state sponsored marriage, therefore talk of God and damnation is beside the point. The state is supposedly separate from the church, and with that being said I don't think gays are pushing for religious reform.[/size]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]You forget that while Jesus knows all, He also forgives anyone, for any transgression - homo sexuality included (despite the fact there's nothing in New Testament proclaiming it a sin, only antiquated documents in Old Testament that are left over from Laws of Judean temples). If you say there's no place for homo sexuality in the church you're denying those people forgiveness, and by extension denying them God. Honestly, a gay Christian isn't looking to shake the church from the foundations - they're there for the same reasons you are, forgiveness from and love of Jesus Christ. All the gay marriage stuff boils down to homo sexuals wanting their relationships regognised by government, and being extended the same rights as a straight couple, not to destroy the Church from the inside out. Don't be so [u]intolerant[/u].[/font][/color][/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]To be fair AM all that statistic proves is that America has a considerable foreign populace, as by that same token does the Republic of Ireland (approximately 10%). So while I accept that maybe 99% of Americans vehemently disagree with sites like Godhatesfags, the site is American in origin.

It wasn?t my intention to paint all Americans with the same brush, but there is a general perception outside of the United States, whether it is correct or not, that the southern states of the U.S. are home to extremists on this and other issues. I?m not saying other countries don?t have to deal with these kinds of people (France for instance has a severe problems with racism), I?m just saying that there is a perception that America has a higher percentage of them than other countries, and sites like Godhatesfags from Kansas don?t exactly challenge that perception. I am however glad to see that it may be an incorrect perception if places like Utah which would typically be considered prime red-neck country are less extremist than perceived.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]My point was that though the site may be hosted in America since I would imagine that when you host a website it is in your own country and not another, but still I was trying to say was that where it was hosted was meaningless as the people who started it may or may not even be American, the same for any type of site hosted in another country, such intolerance is not limited to one place and to assume that other Americans think the same due to a site that was hosted by someone living here was inaccurate.

And even then whether or not they are American doesn?t really matter since an intolerant person is a fool in my opinion, regardless of what country they are from.

You?re focusing on the fact that the person who hosted the site lives in America and the truth is anyone here can host a site and yet their views will not reflect what people really think. I believe you understand what I was getting at so I?ll leave it at that. I personally think it?s kind of sad that others will look at a site and assume that because some idiot over here posted it we must all be like that.

I did not explain my point very well the first time so I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

[TheShinje]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]You forget that while Jesus knows all, He also forgives anyone, for any transgression - homo sexuality included (despite [b]the fact there's nothing in New Testament proclaiming it a sin[/b], only antiquated documents in Old Testament that are left over from Laws of Judean temples). If you say there's no place for homo sexuality in the church you're denying those people forgiveness, and by extension denying them God. Honestly, a gay Christian isn't looking to shake the church from the foundations - they're there for the same reasons you are, forgiveness from and love of Jesus Christ. All the gay marriage stuff boils down to homo sexuals wanting their relationships regognised by government, and being extended the same rights as a straight couple, not to destroy the Church from the inside out. Don't be so [u]intolerant[/u].[/font][/color'][/size][/quote][font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]While Jesus forgives any sin besides blasphemy of the [/color]
[color=navy]Holy Spirit, he does require that you turn from that sin as well. When Jesus sets someone free from their sin, like the prostitute the pharisees were going to stone, he instructed them to "go and sin no more"[/color][/color][/size]
[color=navy] [/color]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy][quote= Romans 1:21-28] Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God, or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. And instead of worshipping the ever-living God, they worshipped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes.[/color]
[color=navy][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degradin g things with each others bodies. Instead of beleiving what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshipped the things God made but not the creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.[/color][/size][/font]
[color=navy] [/color]
[size=2][font=Verdana][color=navy][b]That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved[/b].[/quote][/color][/font][/size]
[color=navy] [/color]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Paul is clearly teaching that homosexuality is a brokenness that God wants us desperately to get free from via a relationship with him. (agape, of course!)[/color][/size]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]So it makes no sense to proclaim a Christian faith and divulge in something the Bible describes as nothing short of a shameful brokenness.[/color][/size][/font]
[color=navy] [/color]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]The awesome thing here is, you can be, with a bit of dedication, freed from this brokenness by the grace of God. I know this because I have been there. I have overcome this very brokenness, and I can tell you, the end result of giving my ungodly desires away is much better than the end result of "God should just accept me for who I am."[/color][/size][/font]
[color=navy] [/color]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Going back earlier in that quote, it tells us that those more likely to fall into the trap of homosexuality are inclined to be those who "worship the creation, not the creator." Interesting to note that the churches struggling with homosexuality in various forms are the churches that pepper their walls with iconography and statues. [/color][/size][/font]
[color=navy] [/color]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Those who want to practice/support homosexuality and remain Christian despite the Biblical passages warning against it should form their own church and look to achieve their religious expressions that way. Established churches are set upon a foundation of beleif that the faithful subscribe to. Going in and pushing for reform like that is like me going to a mosque and declaring that I want to see all the women remove the burqa before I kneel before Allah. [/color][/size][/font][/font][/font]

[Boo]

[size=1][quote name='Retribution][size=1']The debate at hand is not on whether or not the Christian Church should allow gays to get a religious union, but rather a state sponsored marriage, therefore talk of God and damnation is beside the point.[/size][/quote]The title still says [b]Christianity and Gay Marriage[/b], so I'd think the Christianity subject is quite near to the point.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. Paul was a jerk, and if we would do everything that guy wants us to say, we'd be a pretty sad bunch. And the quote you provided is not about love between one each other. In fact, it's about men who [i]out of pure lust[/i] had [i]sexual relationships[/i] with each other. It says it [i]right there[/i]. You can't possibly use this quote as an argument to reject commitment between two people who love each other.

Do you think God would like you having sexual relationships out of pure lust, even if it were with a woman? No, of course not. [/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

[QUOTE=Shinje][font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]Paul is clearly teaching that homosexuality is a brokenness that God wants us desperately to get free from via a relationship with him. (agape, of course!)[/color][/size]
[font=Verdana][size=2][color=navy]So it makes no sense to proclaim a Christian faith and divulge in something the Bible describes as nothing short of a shameful brokenness.[/color][/size][/font][/font][/QUOTE][SIZE=1]I think you misread the passage. Paul is not at all saying that these "shameful desires" - and he does consider them shameful, as would any right-thinking first-century Jew - are in and of themselves bad. Later in the same letter: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." Rather, he assumes that these practices happen because those he criticizes are [i]already sinful[/i], i.e. have already broken with God. That is, what matters for Paul is [i]not the "shameful desires" themselves[/i], which he takes as symptoms at most. It seems to me to grossly misunderstand the thrust of Romans, a letter almost entirely devoted to reinterpreting the law in the light of Christ, to fall back into "such and such is unclean, therefore don't do it." For Pauline Christianity, it isn't the act, but [i]where it comes from[/i].

Moreover, I notice that you do not note that immediately after the section you quote, at 2.1, there appears the phrase: "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." (See also his discussion of law and sin later on) This isn't at all to say that everyone gets to do whatever they want. Paul would never, ever approve someone's saying that "God should just accept me for who I am"; despite the Christian's death to the law, he is nevertheless kept very strictly in line by other means. In the Paul of the Romans, the final question for us is always: are we acting out of [i]love[/i], or from something else? The latter always and only means Sin (big S) - a Sin that is in fact [i]magnified[/i] by the law, never overcome. One should never take what Paul is saying as a touchy-feely, "we're all special" kind of "acceptance." The epistles are not intended as soporifics. But while he is certainly willing to find many things (including homosexality) distasteful, this is never a final criterion. Consider what he says on diet and holy days (Romans 14:1-10):[/SIZE]

[quote][SIZE=1]Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarrelling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgement on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgement on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honour of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honour of the Lord and give thanks to God.

We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord?s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Why do you pass judgement on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgement seat of God.[/SIZE][/quote][SIZE=1]One could easily extend this to the question of homosexuality. However, again, acting out of love does [i]not[/i] mean "do whatever you want." Paul goes on (Romans 4:13-15):[/SIZE]

[quote][SIZE=1]Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.[/SIZE][/quote][SIZE=1]Perhaps Christians, all Christians, including those on both sides, should take careful note of this passage. The usual question of the homosexuality and gay marriage debate is whether or not God "allows" for such things. It's worth wondering whether this has pushed aside a much more, so to speak, Christian question: do my actions injure those around me?; have I let my own "observance" destroy "peace and mutual edification"?; am I acting out of love, or otherwise? "Of course I'm acting out of love! I'm making sure that those sinners don't keep doing the wrong things!" "It's THOSE people who need to act out of love, not me! I have the right to live however I want, and they should accept that!" - whatever else these answers are, I don't think they're Christian, at least not in any sense Paul would have approved.[/SIZE]

[Dagger]

Great post, Fasteriskhead.

It's also worth noting that the concept of homosexuality [i]as we understand it[/i] only crystallized during the past century. The word itself wasn't even coined until around 1892. We ought to tread carefully when applying contemporary ideas of sexual orientation to passages written way back whenever. Whatever Paul was talking about, it wasn't what springs to mind when we think of homosexuality. And not just that, of course--our ideas of romance, love and even [I]heterosexuality[/I] are utterly modern.

~Dagger~

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=Dagger]Great post, Fasteriskhead.

It's also worth noting that the concept of homosexuality [i]as we understand it[/i] only crystallized during the past century. The word itself wasn't even coined until around 1892. We ought to tread carefully when applying contemporary ideas of sexual orientation to passages written way back whenever. Whatever Paul was talking about, it wasn't what springs to mind when we think of homosexuality. And not just that, of course--our ideas of romance, love and even [i]heterosexuality[/i] are utterly modern.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
[size=2]Dagger, while "homosexuality" as a word might be relatively modern, the Bible is clear in it's descriptions of such acts. From leviticus' "Man should nto lie with anothe rman" to the Sodom account in Genesis (the men wanted to have sex with the visitors, who were men.)[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Fasteriskhead has given me some excellent points to mull over. It's a good, solid argument. I'll think and pray over that one.[/size]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Shinje][size=2']Dagger, while "homosexuality" as a word might be relatively modern, the Bible is clear in it's descriptions of such acts. From leviticus' "Man should nto lie with anothe rman" to the Sodom account in Genesis (the men wanted to have sex with the visitors, who were men.)[/size][/quote]
That's the trap you're falling into--equating "homosexuality" with the physical acts mentioned and assuming that it means the same thing as what we refer to today. Heck, even the idea of strict heterosexuals--people who never experience sexual attraction to those of the same sex--is a relatively modern invention. Sexuality itself was in the past not a component of one's personality distinct from larger social and political concerns.

ETA: (And by that I mean the notion of it as a distinct, core component of one's individual being didn't exist.)

I have doubts in my ability to explain this clearly, but I'll try. This example is not Biblical, but it might help indicate how drastically different past paradigms of sexual behavior were from ours, and how (as a result) they can be very difficult to understand. The ancient Athenians didn't embrace homosexuality in the way that they are often characterized as doing. Rather, sexual behavior in their culture was something that ideally took place between superiors and inferiors. Therefore, it was okay for free male citizens to have sex with women, male youths, foreigners or slaves, but not with one another.

(Presumably it was uncontroversial for women to have sex with one another, as they were inferiors to begin with, and their behavior wouldn't have political/social implications... it was strongly frowned upon for a male citizen to subordinate himself to an equal by having sex with him, as that had implications beyond the private arena.) It's also worth mentioning that in those times--and not just in Greece--sex was regarded as less of a mutual act than an act performed by one person upon another (whether same-sex or opposite-sex). This attitude carried over into the Middle Ages and perhaps even beyond.

I mean, this is far less on-topic than Fasteriskhead's line of reasoning, so I would encourage you to pursue that instead, but it's worth taking into consideration. Regardless of whether you choose to interpret the Bible through a modern perspective or wish to read it literally, there are instances in which it helps to remember just how different our cultural mindset is now... whether the issue being dealt with is sex & love or whatever else.

~Dagger~

[Boo]

[quote name='Jeremiah][size=2']From leviticus' "Man should nto lie with anothe rman" to the Sodom account in Genesis (the men wanted to have sex with the visitors, who were men.)[/size][/quote][size=1]They were going to rape the two men. How can you possibly compare that to homosexuality in the way we're discussing it right now? [i]Read[/i] the Bible before you quote it.[/size]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I did not explain my point very well the first time so I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]It's fine AM, the fault was mine in the first place. I've recently been in a fairly bad mood since my ex-girlfriend gave me the infamous "I prefer us as friends" line, and on top of that, the day before yesterday my little sister had to go to go hospital over black-outs she's started getting. So all and all this hasn't been my most peaceful and productive week for me.

I'm well aware that the vast, vast majority of Americans are good, decent people who no longer support "Godhatesfags" and it's ecclesiastical bigotry, regardless of the tiny minority of red-neck cretins who do. In all reality my second last response should have ended with something about how this site was a poor representation of America when it has so many great liberties etched into it's very identity.

Alex, you were right to call me on it, it was the same generalisation I called Adahn on, and I apologise for trying to turn it on you. Ken, we've known one another a long time, and if you feel I was a fool for my response, then you are probably right, though I still feel the remark itself was harsh.

The problem with this issue has always been that both sides are often unwilling to set aside their own beliefs and look through one another's viewpoints. Many Christians see homosexuality as a sinful act regardless of the obvious love segment to it, I can't imagine homosexual groups have sex for purely pleasurable reasons (flings/one nights stands/etc) any more or less than heterosexual couples. In these cases it's often very convenient for these people to be represented entirely by their acts, rather than as full people with the same/similar needs as heterosexuals.

On the other side of the coin, non-religious people often have great difficulty in accepting the nature and importance of faith for the devout. People like myself who follow a certain code of beliefs believe and trust that these were given to us for our benefit, and those who do not follow these beliefs must be guided into or back the chosen path. It is done out of compassion in most cases, or I choose to hope it is done out of compassion, I certainly have no wish for these people to go to Hell, it is not a fate I would wish on anyone.

Simply tossing out passages of the Bible by either side without appreciating the whole message is meaningless, the Christians use the few passages that make reference to homosexuality and fidelity while at the same time forgetting the forgiving and compassionate message that was so central to Christ's teaching. The pro-gay marriage groups bring up this message while at the same time ignoring the teaching of discipline and adherence to God's path.

Both sides [B]must[/B] attempt to look at the world through the other's eyes, rather than simply reducing them to what is convenient for us to dislike. I truly wish to dedicate my life to path God has laid down, so much so that I intend to become a priest eventually. But at the same time, I refuse to treat people as less than human simply because I do not agree with their choices in life. We are all human beings, and we all have the same rights to pursue happiness in our lives, whether or not this issue of legal rights of marriage or civil union or whatever you want to call it is a good or bad thing.[/SIZE]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]I'm well aware that the vast, vast majority of Americans are good, decent people who no longer support "Godhatesfags" and it's ecclesiastical bigotry, regardless of the tiny minority of red-neck cretins who do. In all reality my second last response should have ended with something about how this site was a poor representation of America when it has so many great liberties etched into it's very identity.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]The thing that?s so ironic about sites like that is those of us who do not object to homosexuality have never even visited it and sometimes until it?s brought out into the media, we don?t even know about the site. [QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1']The problem with this issue has always been that both sides are often unwilling to set aside their own beliefs and look through one another's viewpoints. Many Christians see homosexuality as a sinful act regardless of the obvious love segment to it, I can't imagine homosexual groups have sex for purely pleasurable reasons (flings/one nights stands/etc) any more or less than heterosexual couples. In these cases it's often very convenient for these people to be represented entirely by their acts, rather than as full people with the same/similar needs as heterosexuals.[/SIZE][/quote]Here?s the funny thing, from my viewpoint I?ve always understood that people had to make their own choices and if I think they are wrong it?s not my place to try and force others to believe the same. I think the people who are Christians and try to force their religious values on others are in that act committing a sin as well.

Though since I?ve grown up and moved away from religion I no longer share the views I was brought up with in regards to homosexual relationships. I no longer view it as a sin. [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]On the other side of the coin, non-religious people often have great difficulty in accepting the nature and importance of faith for the devout. People like myself who follow a certain code of beliefs believe and trust that these were given to us for our benefit, and those who do not follow these beliefs must be guided into or back the chosen path. It is done out of compassion in most cases, or I choose to hope it is done out of compassion, I certainly have no wish for these people to go to Hell, it is not a fate I would wish on anyone.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]Some of us do understand it, we simply no longer feel that way. I use to be far more religious and religion was important to me. But now that I am not, I no longer feel that connection. I still see it as important, but unfortunately many people take the desire to help others to the point where they are forcing them to live a certain way instead of guiding them there. And just like the horrible site gave the wrong impression about how people here feel towards homosexual relationships. Overzealous members of different churches give the impression that all Christians are trying to force people to live by their values. [QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]Both sides [B]must[/B'] attempt to look at the world through the other's eyes, rather than simply reducing them to what is convenient for us to dislike. I truly wish to dedicate my life to path God has laid down, so much so that I intend to become a priest eventually. But at the same time, I refuse to treat people as less than human simply because I do not agree with their choices in life. We are all human beings, and we all have the same rights to pursue happiness in our lives, whether or not this issue of legal rights of marriage or civil union or whatever you want to call it is a good or bad thing.[/SIZE][/quote]I agree, everyone should have the right to pursue happiness and in the end if God does exist he will decide what is a sin and what is not.